CNN's Schneider, Politico, and Time's Tumulty misled on gun-control politics
Anticipating a public debate over gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, CNN's Bill Schneider, The Politico, and Time's Karen Tumulty all presented misleading reports about the political and public-opinion implications of gun control.
In an April 17 report posted on CNN.com, Schneider falsely suggested that Democrats have avoided campaigning on gun control since their 1994 midterm election losses, noting that then-Vice President Al Gore "rarely talked about gun control during the 2000 presidential campaign" and that "Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate ... defended 2nd Amendment rights." But Schneider omitted any mention of the 1996 presidential election -- the one immediately following those 1994 losses. During the 1996 campaign, President Clinton campaigned on -- and even ran ads touting -- the very same gun-control measures that Schneider says Democrats have run away from.
The Politico ran an April 17 article by reporter Josh Kraushaar that portrayed Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) position on gun policy as in step with public opinion. In fact, Paul opposes all federal gun-control laws, a position that places him among a tiny minority of the American public. The Politico referred vaguely to, but did not cite, "public opinion polls and reader feedback at Politico.com" to assert that Paul is "far from alone." In fact, public opinion polls show near-unanimous opposition to Paul's gun policy positions.
In an April 17 post on the magazine's Swampland weblog, Time's Tumulty described as "radical" a policy position -- mandatory registration of all firearms -- that has enjoyed the support of nearly 80 percent of the American public.
Schneider is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank whose website touts More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2000), a book by former AEI resident fellow John Lott, the widely discredited "scholar" who has been caught using fraudulent data and accused of lying about it and who created the fake online persona "Mary Rosh" to tout his own work.
Schneider's April 17 report about the politics of gun control stated:
In recent years, gun control has been an issue most politicians prefer to stay away from.
The last significant gun control measures to make it through Congress were the Brady bill in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994.
And what happened? Democrats lost control of Congress for 12 years. President Clinton said the gun lobby had a lot to do with his party's defeat. Democrats have been gun-shy ever since.
Then-Vice President Al Gore rarely talked about gun control during the 2000 presidential campaign. Gore even went so far as to say he wouldn't restrict sportsmen or hunters, "None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles."
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, went hunting during his campaign. He defended 2nd Amendment rights said during a campaign debate, saying, "I will protect the Second Amendment. I always have and I always will."
Schneider's assertions about the Democrats' approach to gun control since their defeat in the 1994 midterm election are misleading at best. Schneider asserted that the party has been "gun-shy ever since" and suggested that, since the 1994 elections, Democratic presidential candidates have avoided the issue. But Schneider's claims are undermined by the fact that, just months after the 1994 elections, President Clinton ran ads for his re-election campaign that touted his support for the very same gun legislation.
In fact, some of those ads can be viewed on CNN's own website. One ad boasted, "President Clinton ... signed a tough law to ban deadly assault weapons." Another ad touted the same ban -- and criticized Clinton's Republican opponent, Sen. Bob Dole (KS), for voting against it. During the July 1, 1995, edition of CNN's Inside Politics, host Wolf Blitzer played a portion of "what many are calling the kick-off to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign" -- an ad that highlighted Clinton's signing of the assault weapons ban. (Schneider gave an on-air version of his online gun report during the April 17, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room. After listening to Schneider omit any mention of Clinton's assault weapons ads, Blitzer simply said, "All right, Bill. Thank you for that report.")
So, while Schneider claimed that the 1994 loss of control of Congress after banning assault weapons caused Democrats to become "gun-shy" about the topic and suggested that Democratic presidential candidates have avoided it, the reality is that just a few months after the 1994 loss, ads for Clinton touted that very same assault weapons ban. And the ban remained popular right up to the Republican Congress' decision to let it expire in 2004. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted at the time found that 61 percent of Americans were "dissatisfied" with the expiration, while only 12 percent were "satisfied."
Schneider went on to claim:
Support for gun control dropping
Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.
Again, this is misleading at best.
First, according to Gallup, "Fifty-one percent of Americans in a January 2007 poll say gun laws in the country should be more strict" -- not 49 percent, as Schneider asserted. Gallup also reported finding 56 percent support for making laws governing the sale of firearms more strict. Neither Gallup's April 17 summary of opinions of gun control nor pollingreport.com nor any other source Media Matters for America has found supports Schneider's claim that support for stricter gun laws "was at 49 percent" in January.
More significantly, by (apparently falsely) claiming there was "less than a majority" support for "stricter gun laws," but omitting any mention of the fact that only 14 percent favored "less strict" gun laws, Schneider misleadingly suggested the public is evenly split on the topic. In fact, polling consistently finds a majority in favor of stricter gun control laws, and a huge majority in favor of at least maintaining the laws we have now.
While Schneider asserted that "support for gun control [is] dropping," Gallup seems to contradict him: "Although it is unclear to what degree more rigid gun control laws might have prevented the Virginia Tech tragedy, Gallup's data suggest that the public is, in general, open to the idea of stricter laws governing the sale of firearms and more rigorous enforcement of gun control laws." Gallup also noted that, after a small uptick in support for stricter "laws covering the sale of firearms" following Columbine and a "slight" fall following September 11, "This January's 56% agreement with the 'more strict' alternative is roughly average for the last five times the question has been asked since October of 2003."
Schneider also distorted the opinions of gun owners:
After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises. So does support for gun control measures. ... But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue.
Schneider's claim that "[g]un owners vote the issue" suggests that gun owners vote as a monolithic block in opposition to gun control. In fact, polling shows that is not the case:
- A July 1999 CNN/Time poll found that a majority of those who have a gun in their home oppose stricter gun control laws, but 46 percent were in favor. More specific questions found greater support for gun control laws among those with a gun in the home: 64 percent favored the federal government requiring registration of all handguns, and 64 percent also favored mandatory licensing for handgun owners. A slim plurality -- 46 percent to 42 percent -- of those with a gun in the home said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports stricter gun laws.
- An ABC News poll conducted in October 2002 found that 61 percent of gun owners supported "a law requiring every gun sold in this country to be test-fired first so the authorities would have its ballistic fingerprint in case it was ever used in a crime." (Newsweek also polled on ballistic fingerprinting the same month and found that gun owners opposed it by a narrower margin. The argument against ballistic fingerprinting included in the Newsweek poll question discussed concerns about the efficacy of fingerprinting, not the principle of it.)
- In an August 1999 poll, Newsweek found that 91 percent of gun owners favored mandatory waiting periods for handgun purchases so background checks can be conducted, 85 percent supported requiring child safety locks to be sold with all new handguns, 80 percent favored requiring handgun owners to attend gun safety courses, 66 percent supported requiring "all handgun owners to register with the government," 63 percent supported a ban on "the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns," and a large minority -- 45 percent -- favored requiring "owners of hunting rifles to register with the government." (The poll also found much lower support among gun owners for banning gun shows, penalizing manufacturers whose guns "fall into the hands of children," and banning the possession of handguns.)
Readers of The Politico's write-up of Republican Congressman Ron Paul's claim that the "lack of access" to guns "increases our crime rate" were even more badly misled. The Politico falsely suggested that Paul's opposition to gun safety legislation is in step with public opinion:
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.
[...]
Paul, 71, is the kind of lawmaker, and presidential candidate, gun control advocates love to hate at moments like this. And, based on public opinion polls and reader feedback at Politico.com, he's far from alone.
Echoing the views of many Americans, he sees calls for restriction on guns as an affront to freedom.
The Politico article made no mention of any specific "public opinion polls." Nor did The Politico detail the "reader feedback" that supposedly informed the article. Presumably that feedback did not constitute a scientific assessment of public opinion -- and, given the frequency with which readers find their way to Politico.com via right-wing Internet gossip Matt Drudge, The Politico's readership likely skews conservative. Most glaringly, the Politico article did not in any way indicate that "many Americans" -- indeed, the vast majority -- disagree with Paul's opposition to restrictions on guns.
Paul -- who argues in a column on his website that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations, which he claims wants to "undermine Second Amendment rights in America" because "[t]hey believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals" -- describes himself as "an opponent of all federal gun laws" and has introduced legislation to "repeal[] misguided federal gun-control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban."
Contrary to The Politico's suggestion that Paul's gun views enjoy wide public support, the vast majority of public polling on the topic has found that the public favors gun control -- often by overwhelming margins. Paul's gun views constitute a fringe position, contrary to The Politico's vague assertion that "many Americans" agree with him.
For example, in 18 Gallup polls listed on pollingreport.com dating back to 1990, the percentage of Americans who favor making "laws covering the sale of firearms" less strict has ranged from a high of 12 percent to a low of only 2 percent.
Time's Tumulty wrote in an April 17 Swampland post:
But in talking to Democrats on Capitol Hill, I'm picking up no enthusiasm for a cause that many have deemed a political loser. Al Gore's relatively modest proposal in the wake of Columbine for licensing gun owners (as opposed to the more radical one of registering their guns) is still widely believed to have been a factor in costing him the election, losing him votes that he might otherwise have gotten from, for instance, gun-owning union members.
Despite Tumulty's description of mandatory gun registration as "radical," polls conducted in 1999 and 2000 found that an overwhelming majority of Americans favored mandatory handgun registration. Gallup/CNN/USA Today found 73 percent in favor in January 2000 and 79 percent in favor in February 1999. Likewise, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released in September 1999 found 75 percent in favor of handgun registration. A CNN/Time poll conducted in July 1999 found that 76 percent of Americans -- including 64 percent of those with a gun in their home -- were in favor of "the federal government requiring handgun owners to register each handgun they own with the government."
And a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in June 1999 found that the public's desire for gun registration was not limited to handguns; according to the poll, 79 percent of Americans supported "[t]he registration of all firearms."
I saw a lot of polling data, which is good, but did not see a documentation about Democrats campaigning. So does mean Bill Schneider is right?
No, other than stuff about the '96 campaign, you're right... certainly nothing in the last ten years.
mmfa did nothing to debunk the claim by Schneider about the "democrats campaign strategy" on gun control.
This was just a flimsy excuse to promote the Soros anti-gun philosophy. Yep, a Soros operation...they receive Soros money and espouse his views...it's crystal clear.
"mmfa did nothing to debunk the claim by Schneider about the 'democrats campaign strategy' on gun control."
Actually, we did, in the second, seventh, and eighth paragraphs of our text. Here's a portion:
But Schneider's claims are undermined by the fact that, just months after the 1994 elections, President Clinton ran ads for his re-election campaign that touted his support for the very same gun legislation.
In fact, some of those ads can be viewed on CNN's own website. One">[link to www.cnn.com] ad boasted, "President Clinton ... signed a tough law to ban deadly assault weapons." Another">[link to www.cnn.com] ad touted the same ban -- and criticized Clinton's Republican opponent, Sen. Bob Dole (KS), for voting against it. During the July 1, 1995, edition of CNN's Inside Politics, host Wolf Blitzer played a portion of "what many are calling the kick-off to Bill Clinton's re-election campaign" -- an ad that highlighted Clinton's signing of the assault weapons ban.
I am not taking the side of the guy with the "Soros anti-gun" nonsense, but I do think it's a bit of a narrow point - if Schneider had said "since the 1996 election," a difference of two years, he'd have been factually correct and his broader point would have held.
Anyway, thanks for responding, it would be nice to get more interaction with the editors...
Yes, it's odd though that they chose that assertion to be the one to debunk though. Since it is such a trivial distinction: 12 years vs. 15 years. I mean, I know they did a lot of research to construct this log, and I don't mean to discount those hours. I just have to concur that while it may be nice for more editorial insertions, this was hardly the place where they could put their best foot forward.
Since we all agree MMFA is wrong why is this banner still up?
I, for one, am tired of these tragedies being exploited by both sides of the gun debate to further their own agenda.
They both use scare tactics to defend their positions, why? The pro-gun people always say "the anti gunners want to take every gun out of our hands, they want them all banned" - that is ridiculous and never going to happen. The gun control advocates always say "the pro gun lobby want every American armed and shooting" - another ridiculous scare tactic that is impossible.
I wonder why is it if both sides of this debate feel their positions are so rock solid and defensible, why must they resort to such sleazy fear-mongering?
We need reasonable, intellectually honest people to address this issue - not hardened partisans from either side.
What sort of policy would you like to see?
I am for the assault weapons ban. I would like a reasonable waiting period, a backround check more thorough than just one's criminal record.
Not to put you on the spot, but maybe you already know. Don't we already have the assault weapons ban? What is the waiting period? 5 days? Longer? What other check would one need besides the criminal check?
Oh and contrary to Solon's insistence that I am a bloodthirsty war monger and a liar, who revels in the killing of U.S. soldiers so I and my evil and rich buddies can make money by sending off the poor to die in Iraq; I'm sorry to report, I've never owned a gun.
;-)
Funny, I have been called the same. Well, in a past life...... :0)
And the only gun i own is a paintball gun!
I feel California has strict enough laws. You know in Arizona you can carry a side arm.
I personally, do not need anyone to tell me how to handle a gun, and what kind of gun I can, and can not buy. I do not own any, but grew up shooting plenty of Cactus in Arizona. I see no problem owning a assault riffle. The problem I see, the responsable pay for stupids mistake. Not fair.
why do you need an assault rifle. the police certainly do not want people running around with them because they end up on the wrong end frequently. i don't have a problem with people owning guns, but this is not 18th century america anymore where you could just run away from someone with a single shot pistol. i think that the framers of the constitution left that little caveat about a well regulated militia in there on purpose. if they wanted an absolute right to own weapons, it would have been without a qualifier.
Do I need one? Not for any other purpose than owning it. I happen to like all kinds of weapons. I also happen to be responsable. So, as ussual, the responsable pay for stupids mistakes.
However you want to interperate the 2nd ammendment, is up to you. Yypical argument from the left.
So we should face the risk of exponential death tolls because you like the way something looks on your wall, or what? That's genius. They should sell flamethrowers at Wal-mart so I can cook hamburgers from twenty feet away, just because I like the idea of it. I'm a responsible guy.
I didn't know interpreting the Consistution was a "left"ist concept.
Iron,
How about if you were allowed to own an assault weapon that was completely mechanically disabled and could not be reversed in any way, legally. Would that satisy you?
Never mind the legally part.........just what if the gun were useless except for show?
Here's the thing, a strict adherence to the original intent of the second amendment would allow for citizens to have any weapon possessed by the federal government. That would include, of course, nuclear weapons. It is fair to argue that there's a contextual flaw with the amendment in that when it was written the writers barely anticipated an organized military that could ever overpower the people. They never imagined guns that could fire tens of rounds in a second. They never imagined portable explosives that could destroy entire cities.
I believe in the second amendment. I believe it's important, and not open to wide interpretation. I believe, however, that it's fair to put restrictions on the type of weaponry permitted under said the amendment. But I also see those limits as a slippery slope. Neither side should be totally happy on this one. Not the gun lobby. Not those that would make illegal to own or carry a handgun.
Everyone in America SHOULD own an assault rifle, like they do in Switzerland (where it is required). The reason is simply that government should always be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
Have you read the Declaration of Independence lately? It gives a list of reasons that we threw the British out. Virtually every item on that list has now come to pass under our own government. Do you think maybe the time has come for a Second American Revolution?
Keep in mind that the very first thing Hitler did when he became Chancellor of Germany was to insitute gun control.
why do you hate america?
i would be interested to know who willers voted for.
Look, if you can get most people on board with that impossible hysteria, more power to you. Just know that the pro gun advocates in this country had better not expect any more supporters than they already have if they continue to put forth that wild prediction as the best argument they've got.
It ain't gonna work.
WTF?
"Virtually every item on that list has now come to pass under our own government"?
I'll say it again. WTF?
Can you list your source on this?
WTF?
The Swiss don't own their rifles. They are military issue. Every Swiss male is given military training and participates in regular reserve exercises. When you are no longer of military age, you have to hand your rifle back in. If you are unable to participate in the militia for health reasons, you do not get a rifle. They do not have a culture of "you can have a gun if you want" in Switzerland. Their militia is VERY well-regulated.
Everyone in America SHOULD own an assault rifle, like they do in Switzerland (where it is required).
Huh? C'mon, back up your information, sounds like a load to me.
Let's take a closer look at that 2nd Amendment, shall we?
Gun ownership, it should be noted, is NOT an inalienable right but a provisional right. Gun ownership is a PRIVILEGE, like a driver's license, which is also NOT a right.
Also, a caveat present in the 2nd Amendment states clearly:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia. Regulated. Get it? I don't take that to mean Joe Sixpax and Susie Creamcheese and Uncle Ernie have the right to carry a Glock as an accessory, unless they in official uniform. A 'well regulated militia'. I would have to say that sounds a lot like the National Guard and nothing less.
What is the waiting period? 5 days? Longer?
Obviously, in Virginia, it's zero.
The federal assault weapons ban was defeated, afaik.
Lapacian,
I do believe the shooter bought his guns legally. But I am not sure if a waiting period was in effect. Even so, as I understand it, he bought one a month earlier and the other a month or so before that.
AA,
The shooter did buy the guns legally, you're right. There is no waiting period for an individual sale, but you can only buy one gun a month. He waited the requisite 30 days.
Technical point here, but I believe the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed passively to expire in 2004 under sunset provisions, not actively defeated. It is hard to believe no new legislation has been proposed in the last 3 years. Why hasn't the Dem Congress revived this issue? If I remember correctly, Bush even modestly supported renewing the AWB in 2004.
That is correct, as I understand it. Another Bush accomplishment concealed by the smokescreen of the 'War on Terr'r'. The list grows long.
I do not recall where the shooter had an assault weapon. He had a Glock and a Walther. From my reading of it, neither weapon were on the banned list.The high capacity magazines may have been, but nothing I've seen says that he had them. I think this is more of a Brady Bill issue. Anyone?
The assault weapons ban comes up every so often, and I would support it's continuation. As for the waiting period, 5 days is reasonable however I would not be opposed to longer if warranted. Backround checks should include mental health, credit checks, any misdeameanors or lesser crimes also.
I said I am the last person with any answers and am certainly willing to listen to all sides - I am just tired of the hacks from both sides spinning it to suit their agenda.
I agree on the mental health checks Tommy. Unfortunately, the NRA is just like the pro-choice and pro-life lobbies..they think if they give an inch, their cause is lost.
If a bad guy wants an assault weapon bad enough, then he'll find a way to get one illegally. Banning certain types of weapons does absolutely no good. It just ensures that it's only the bad guys that have the guns. A ban on assault weapons only affects law abiding citizens who actually go through the legal process to buy guns. If a bad guy wants a gun bad enough, he'll find a way to get one. He won't go through the whole legal process.
Wow...You've gotten yourself worked up so much that you are repeating yourself.
Assault weapons are a good start, since there is no legitimate reason for someone to own one, except to compensate for their small penis. You have to start somewhere to begin getting the weapons off the streets.
No, we no longer have a Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It was allowed to expire on September 13, 2004.
FYI, I read that the assault weapons ban expiration was the reason the killer at VT could have 30-bullet clips for his handguns.
A mental health check. My brother has OCD and a perfect memory for everything anyone's ever said to him. Just today I found out he disconnected his toilet and was defecating in containers at one point. He emptied his closet and put decapitated barbie dolls inside with a butcher knife placed in the center of them, which scared the hell out of someone who was doing work in his apartment. He shaves his whole body (from what I gather), excepting a very short haircut but including his eyebrows.
Bear in mind, he doesn't have a car. He's part of a state-run program where he gets a discounted apartment and a state-provided job. If he wasn't allowed to get a gun, and tried to get one illegally, I can't imagine how he would go about it. He's not going to ask around at work, that's a huge red flag. He's not going to ask someone to drive him around Detroit looking for a gun dealer. I sure as hell wouldn't help him out.
So here's the punchline;he's got a .357 Magnum. He got it legally, because he has no criminal background. If that doesn't seem like a problem to people, it probably should.
Brab,
I am very sorry to hear of your brother's disorder. My heart goes out to your brother, and your family.
You raise a very good point.
Thank you, I appreciate that. He's extremely intelligent and normally very nice, but it's still a very worrisome thing, obviously.
Ditto to AA's post. Sincere hope things improve for your family.
Thanks as well. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's not really a concern for anyone but me.
That thing with the barbie dolls and the butcher's knife does not sound good. Keep a close eye on him.
Tommy, I am with you on this. So are most people I know who own guns. I have never sought to prevent responsible people who feel they need guns to defend themselves from owning them.
There are some, though, who consider any increase in regulation as a slide down a slippery slope. When people talk about "gun control" they should be more specific about what they are advocating.
Some gun hawks are saying that if guns had been allowed on campus (a private institution, by the way) the tragedy could have been averted. I certainly don't agree with that. Having a lot of untrained people toting guns could have made it worse. What I do agree with is that a young person who is widely known to have emotional problems should not be sold a gun over the counter and on the spot. I firmly believe that Cho and the "trenchcoat Mafia" may well have survived adolescence and become productive people if not for easy access to guns.
Very well said, I am in total agreement.
I agree with what Lap and Tommy are saying on this...
And you'll both be labeled far-left socialists by today's Publican Party; Bill O'Reilly and the whacks at Fox will ridicule you as nothing but Soft European Socialists.
The NRA is already compiling files on both of you.
Actually O'Reilly supports gun control. He's not really the conservative ideologue that you say he is.
The past few days I have heard both conservatives and progressives admit that gun control has not been a political issue for awhile now. If 1996 is MMFA's example then I would say that Schneider is correct in his point except for his reference to 1994. His references to Gore and Kerry were not refuted here.
Schneider's polling deceptions are a far more serious error.
Well documented by this great website.
One quibble: I note frequently that it is not those who attack ownership, who advocate strenuously that "more guns, and better guns, would resolve all our problems." That position is not some false-flag operation by gun-control operatives, but the precise position of those who oppose even the existing ineffectual regulation.
This has always been a tough issue for me. Constitutional scholars disagree on the exact meaning of the Second Amendment, and the affect of gun laws on violent crimes like this one is unclear. Short of a total ban and confiscation, how do you prevent a lone nut with no criminal record from buying a gun and murdering a bunch of people? There may be no real answer for this one. I'm of the opinion that the problem is deeply seated in our culture, and may defy any simple solutions.
I am of the same mind as you on this, Nerzog. One of the prices we pay for our freedoms, unfortunately, is we cannot completely prevent tragedies like the VT horror from happening. There is no easy answer.
I mean, can you imagine if the VT campus had allowed guns, as some gun proponents argue may have helped? Well, I suppose it could have prevented some of the murders - but if you were a cop, how would you know who is the killer and who isn't? Everyone waving firearms around, it would be a nightmare as well.
I am somewhere in the middle on the whole issue. I have heard that idea being thrown around that more of the students should have had weapons. You make a valid point that 1: how would you know who the shooter was 2: dothe police want a bunch of vigilante students on the hunt for the shooter?
This is a tricky matter indeed, more guns doesn't really seem to be the appropriate answer in my opinion though.
Tommy,
It is my guess that if everyone, as you hypothisized had guns, the tragedy would have been over well before the police arrived.
..as is often the case I can't spell.. my apologies. It should be hypothesized..
Or you run the risk of panicked students with loaded guns running around, acting out of fear and impulse only to possibly shoot more innocent students, facing the killer and the campus ends up looking like Baghdad........one really doesn't know.
And more potential nuts would be armed.
Not only that. Consider the amount of alcohol that's consumed on campuses today, and the amount of binge drinking. Now figure every fourth guy has a gun. Recipe for mayhem.
Something like 46 gun homicides in the entire country of Great Britain last year.
Over 500 homicides in New York City alone last year. New York has a population 1/7th that of Great Britain.
On some level, it just seems to me there is a shortage of common sense in America.
Great Britain isn't flooded with cheap handguns like the USA is.
The other problem is the "militia" thing. I think it would be a much easier argument for those who think that gun ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment only in the case of a militia, should we really have state militias organized locally, instead of "National Guards" who can be deployed to places like Iraq. Does anyone really think the National Guard would be there to protect us against a rogue Federal Gov?
Actually, some states do have State Guards, volunteer organizations that cannot be federalized. Some 30+ states have them, though the level of organization varies greatly and noe are of any comparable size to the National Guards.
Personally, I think the Federal government is already out of control and the State governments are so full of Dems and Repubs that they are already assisting in a Federal dismantling of the Constitution. If DC decided to disband the states and put in total Federal control, our state politicians would rush to beg for government jobs in the heirarchy of the new order. They can't be trusted to demand DC back off now.
Imagine if a State declared the Federal government to be war criminal and ordered it's National Guard to refuse to obey Federal orders for mobilization and put out warrants for the arrest of the present administration for violations of the Geneva Conventions. I can't picture ANY of our State governments standing up for what's right and actually doing it.
I agree. Anything short of a total ban on firearms would not have prevented the VA Tech tragedy. Of course, I've heard very few argue that approach, just as few seem to argue for a completely unregulated approach. Neither of those would seem to be viable solutions.
Could VA Tech have responded more effectively to the first incident? That would seem to be a real possibility. From a practical aspect, that may be the best focus for improvements.
At a deeper level, I don't think building fences is the answer. In fact, I see that as exacerbating our growing culture of - to paraphrase Obama's comments from yesterday - failing to see ourself in others. That attitude is probably at the root of much violence.
(Speaking of which, if anyone has a link to Obama's complete commentsfrom yersterday, I'd be interested. He's been criticized by many for some "rediculous comparisons." While I believe that this view expressed by Obama has some policy implications, I have no idea from the excerpts I've read if Obama takes this idea to any practical conclusion with regard to the role of the executive...or if it's another 1000 points of light ala Bush41. Thanks in advance.)
Anything short of a total ban on firearms would not have prevented the VA Tech tragedy.
Okay, so let's say I'm a disturbed student intent on killing as many people as possible, without regard for my own life, and I don't have a gun. Maybe I'll just wait until lunch and drive my car 70mph through the quad. I'll bet I could take out more people that way than with a gun anyway. Or perhaps a nice explosion. It's easy enough to get materials to make a pipe bomb, and I figure I could take out 3 or 4 classroom-fulls before anybody even has an idea of what's going on. Poisoning the food in the cafeteria? Tainting the water? A fire at the stadium during the next football game? Maybe not too many burned, but add some trampled...
And we're worried about handguns being used as instruments in a massacre? The fact is that there's plenty of danger out there, and plenty of potential weapons that we use as daily commodities. Not even a complete ban on firearms would guarantee immunity from another Vtech incident. The only key to stopping human-caused tragedy is the human.
I don't agree that the other methods you mention are as simple to execute to the same effect as buying a couple of handguns and several clips of ammunition. Regardless, however, I wasn't arguing for a total ban.
Short of a total ban and confiscation, how do you prevent a lone nut with no criminal record from buying a gun and murdering a bunch of people?
You can only make it less probable. With a waiting period, background check, severe penalties for illegal sales, etc. (BTW we have all that in New York) fewer such people would be able to obtain guns. Inevitably, some people with good intentions would be denied, or experience delays. Occasionally, I suppose, someone with a dire need could be denied to her detriment, but that would be a rare occurance. There could be exceptions for people with restraining orders against their spouses.
Are we going to prevent every gun tragedy? Of course not. We have to weigh the costs and benefits of every action.
I'm all for restricting ownership of handguns to law enforcement. The trusty 30-06, or 12-gauge, hanging in my den are certainly sufficient for any foreseeable home-defense issues; and *I*, at least, should not be allowed ready access to means to go shoot lots of people. OTOH, perhaps your argument that you should be so entitled, would raise inherently, questions of your own suitability for such access?
Theoritically I might agree.
However your position effectively states that you can only use those guns to defend yourself if you happen to have thought before hand to take them down and carry them with you. We all know carrying shotguns and/or rifles is not the answer to self defense.
So knowing that reality has a way of messing with theory, do you have any more practicle solution in mind?
oops.. It should be spelled theoretically...
Shooting people should require some forethought, don't ya think? I mean it souldn't be quite automatic to fire first, examine later?
Moreover, if I "take them down and carry them with me", the very issue of "self-defense" or "defense of home" is negated?
Reality is, it is quite unlikely that I could more readily get my handgun out of the safe, and load it, than that I would toss a couple of shells into the 12-gauge, should someone attack me in my home. So at best a wash as to superior service to self-defense; and I assure you, that 12-gauge is both more intimidating, and more effective in dealing with any such threat that might present itself, than a Ruger .22, even if the clip were full, and it didn't take me six days to open the safe.
I want someone to give a good reason why anyone should own and assault rifle? There is none. Automatic weapons? Same. Even semi-automatic.... These are weapons devised for killing people. Yes. That is true. There's no reason any 'hunter' needs to be armed to the teeth and hide beyond the 2nd amendment.
You want to hunt? Fine. Be a man and use a bow. Shooting anything with an automatic (even semi-automatic) weapon is weak...at best.
Greek, the manliness factor argument really isn't on topic.
I disagree. The 2nd ammendment has been interpreted any number of ways... to include saying the use of automatic weapons and assault rifles are part and parcel of the 2nd ammendment (ie. one's right bear arms). If conservatives want to gain ground on this issue, they should concede some points first. Groups like the NRA are so entrenched, they hold that ANY ground given would be a slippery slope toward a total ban on guns.... which would never happen.
I want to know why owning assault rifles or automatic weapons is even part of this discussion? What's the reason behind it? There's more to it -- be it fear or the need to be 'armed' or whatever -- that partially drives this debate. Something that is not intellectually or rationally based or backed up by statistics re crime/personal protection. A previous poster said "I support people's right to own assault rifles"... Why?
For me. I happen to like all kinds of weapons. Mainly for collecting reasons. Plain and simple.
How many do you have Evil? I'm curious.
Hey, despite what GEN below assumed... I'm not for prohibiting gun ownership. However, owning a gun for personal use (in my mind...and sort of backed up by the wording of the 2nd amendment) is not a right. It is a privilege. As a collector, you should be subject to checks, etc... to be sure you are just that, a hobbyist ...and not someone stockpiling for the apocalypse. That's my opinion. Seems rational.
Yes, that does sound and is rational.
Sorry, I see now that you said previously that you didn't have any guns except for a paint ball gun.
You figured me out!
My wife is not comfi with guns, she is quite liberal belive it or not... She did recently agree to allow me to buy a shotgun. I own all other kinds of weapons, most Asian and Medi-Evil swords, stars ect.
Yes, I did. I don't agree with you a lot, but you're a lot more reasonable than any of those other guys who got bounced that weekend. I for one missed you.
Dex, I disagree, in the context.
Can I shed some light on this Issue as a non-gun-owner.
No Government or school can stop a person on a suicide mission.
No gun-control-law can stop a determined person from getting a gun. (You honestly think the crips and bloods will stop having guns if there were laws preventing them??)
Moreover, it is hard not to notice that all the massacres similar to this took place in gun-free-zones.
Several instances like these in the last two decades, however, were prevented by people who went to their cars, got their guns and apprehended the suspect before the police arrived.
Gun-free-zones are simply "forced helplessness."
The police are citizens themselves. They want to go home at night. They can't protect everyone at all times.
But, if someone were to attack me, I should have the right to defend myself.
Now, to dispell the argument that Only trained police and Gov't officials can have guns. You really need to look at history to see that the ALL of the genocides of the last 100 years were caused by Armed Gov'ts or mobs against unarmed citizenry. (Pol Pot, Europe WWII, Kosovo, Uganda, etc.)
Pol Pot told his people that they didn't need guns, b/c the gov't was going to protect them. Then the next month, after taking away all guns, he massacred hundreds of thousands of people.
The holocaust couldn't have happend if the Jews were allowed to own guns (guns were banned almost throughout Europe).
In fact, several jews in Polland were able to find weapons and stagged an insurgency. Not one of those people ever saw a gas chamber.
Rawanda - The Hutus were able to use machetees b/c the Tutsi's couldn't have guns.
Regardless of your concern about Guns, they are necessary for a free society.
LDoren,
You have just given a perfect example of what I was saying in my first post......if your arguments in favor of gun ownership are so solid, and so defensible, and so constitutionally protected - why must you bring up Pol Pot and the Holocaust as legitimate reasons?
We are in no danger in this country by any such government takeovers......that is an absolutely ridiculous pie-in-the-sky assertion and it takes the argument to lala land. Who can reasonably rebut your arguments if you veer off into that stratosphere?
Not only that Tommy,
These fools actually think they could stop the government; or more specifically: Tanks, Tank Armor, Tank Rounds, National Gaurd, Night vision goggles, Helicopters, battering rams, tear gas, Firehose water, rubber bullets, real bullets, TASERS, pepper spray, real assualt raffles, semi-automatic pistols, automatic pistols, Body Armor, F-15 ,F-18's, F-22's, UAVs, UGVs, swat teams, police forces, with a couple of minute men holding a cigarrette and an... assault rifle? Delusional Much? You guys are just tools for votes. Of course you don't know that... cause your tools. We are helpless, you can win a couple of battles but we already gave up our protection to the government. Consider yourself dead. Wanna defend yourself in case of a government gone awry? Join the army, and then mutinee/defect; you'll have access to better weapons and you might last longer than 2 minutes.
(Can't wait to go to the shooting range tommorrow....)
Tommy - maybe it's YOU who are in "lala land."
Europe has a genocide every 30 years. Maybe it's you who needs to take a look at history. All the arguments I made are relevant and to the point
If the best argument you've got for widespread gun ownership in this country is fear of genocide by our government, then by all means - go for it. It is a baseless and ridiculous argument to put forth, for it just makes you look desperate through silly fear-mongering.
Fear Mongering??
When the Gov't has all the power and all the force, that is totalitarianism.
Genocides can happen here.
Germany/ Poland/ Kosovo/ Turkey/ Russia/ Uganda/ Sudan/ Cambodia had genocides within the last fifty - sixty years.
You seem to think because we live in America we are immune from Gov't attacks on its own people.
The reason for having holocaust museums around the world is not just to remember the past, but also to remember that the past repeats itself.
The right to protect yourself with a gun, a right that I choose not to exercise, is a right that everyone has. If the Gov't ever breaks down, or refuses to protect me, that's when I should be allowed to exercise that right.
You left out the fact that those were all cases of people with guns fighting people with guns, winning, then shooting the people with guns some more. Entire armies were involved and that didn't stop the mass murders. Just being armed is not defense.
Not one of those massecres invovled people with guns. Pol Pot banned guns, Hitlers first action as leader was to ban guns, the Tutsi didn't have guns...
If Germany had to fight two fronts on the East and West and had to deal with citizenry fighting back, it never could have committed genocide.
In fact, Jews in Poland demonstrated that.
Hitler invaded Poland, a country with guns, and still ran them over. His point is valid and you are again off the mark.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Armed-resistance-to-the-holocaust.htm
You don't know what you're talking about.
So Hitler didn't invade Poland? Which part was wrong? I'm waiting?
You seem to fall back on "your ignorant" when you can't backup your argument, even when someone states something that is irrefutable. Methinks you're a master projectionist.
He invaded Poland, but the people who had guns often survived.
Really? You mean the partisans that attacked SS and then were rounded up in hanged, along with their families and a few random folks? That worked real well for them.
Our ability to resist the government, with or without guns, is much less than the Jews could resist the Nazi's. The gap between what Jimmy Joe Bob has in his arsenal and the government's is that big. So, when you and your buds sit around the campfire at your militia meetings, you can fantasize all you want about fighting back. It ain't going to happen.
"America can never be invaded. Their people have guns, and they know how to use them."
Mao Ze Dung.
Invaded. But the government can suppress us as they are already here and have superior weaponry, including nukes. There is only one factor that keeps the government in line. In order to seize absolute power, it has to be assured that if necessary its military would turn on the people. This acts as a check as people in the military of civilized nations are reluctant to do that. So, the leaders have to be reasonable most of the time. Whether Americans do or don't have guns is immaterial.
Are you retarded, the Gov't is so outnumbered by its people.
The Gov't also lives with us, it can't nuke itself.
Guns matter.
"Are you retarded"
No. But you've said all you need to say about yourself with that comment.
We outnumber them with or without guns.
"Several instances like these in the last two decades, however, were prevented by people who went to their cars, got their guns and apprehended the suspect before the police arrived."
NAME EM' DOCUMENT EM'.
Put up or shut up
I rise to second your motion!
Very impressive. How many kids did the pricipal save before the guy ran off because of the sirens? uh, what's that you say? zero? Yep, that's the count I came up with, too. Sounds like the cops sirens stopped the shooting. And the pricipal on the phone giving the description of the getaway car would have stopped him from going to another school.
And that's the BEST you could come up with? Really sad.
I guess that means you're thirding the motion to "name 'em, document 'em"? Musta hit the "reply" button on the wrong post? (done that a coupla time myself.)
Well to be fair, several not Lots
Not withstanding having to break the law to save the day, I consider the guy a hero. I hope the county was leniant in his case or dropped it all together. I am a proponent of the good samaritan law which would be perfect for this kind of situation.
All this talk about polls on gun control, and whether it's 49% in favor or 51% in favor is all irrellevent. Public opinion on the subject of our Constitutional rights is completely irrellevent.
This country is NOT a democracy, it is a republic. In a republic, the opinion of the people matters only within certain defined limits. Everything that is listed in the Bill of Rights is simply OFF LIMITS with regard to public opinion. The Bill of Rights starts out with the words "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..."
It does not matter how many people think gun control is a good idea. Everyone has a RIGHT to own a gun, and RIGHTS are NOT subject to popular opinion.
With rights come responsibility. Gun ownership requires responsibility - if it were just a right afforded to everyone, then why restrict criminals, or those suffering from severe mental disorders from owning them? By your logic, their rights are being violated.
Some comments/corrections...
Public opinion on the subject of our Constitutional rights is completely irrellevent.
With respect to current application of the Constitution, I agree. However, even the Consitution can be changed to suit hte public.
The Bill of Rights starts out with the words "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..."
Incorrect. The first time those words appear is in the First Amendment. Those words appear in neither the Preamble to the Bill of Rights nor in the Second Amendment.
Everyone has a RIGHT to own a gun
Actually, the Second Amendment specifies "arms," not guns specifically. So does everyone have a right to own arms? What about nuclear arms? The latter would seem absurd. So, in practice, "arms" have been defined within certain, but changing bounds.
Also, a major point of contention is whether the Second Amendment protects individual rights or simply the rights of the States to form militias. Precedent generally favors the latter interpretation, though I wouldn't say definitively. Even the Founding Fathers seemed to have some disagreement on this issue.
The only thing that is fairly straight forward about the Second Amendment is the inspiration, i.e., the expression of similar rights in the English Bill of Rights. Those rights were written in the wake of the King's attempt to disarm his Protestant opponents. In short, arms in the hands of the People were a method to prevent tyranny.
Frankly, I subscribe that our Founding Fathers simply weren't the amazing visionaries we'd like to believe. Given the history of arms and military up to that time, I see no reason to assume they understood the implication of their debate in the context of modern weapon technology. More likely they reached a compromise reasonable for their context. If any of them did foresee problems with future application, then it would appear they chose to punt that debate to us.
Either you're ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
The word "people" is used throughout the bill of rights. It is clearly used to define individuals. The tenth Amendment used the word "people" and makes a distinction b/w "people" and "states." It does this by the disjuntive word States "or" the People.
To say the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right is absurd. That would only be true if they used the word "people" to mean "states" in the 2nd Amendment. They clearly didn't, and meant people/ individuals throughout the bill of rights.
Lastly, how can a State bare arms.
What part of "well-regulated militia" don't you understand?
Why is it that anyone with an agenda can push intellectually dishonest arguments.
Under the Constitution - States are granted "powers" or "authorities" but never "rights."
Only individuals have "rights."
"right of the people" appears four times in the Bill of Rights, and each time it clearly represents an individual's rights against the Government, a guarantee that the Government cannot take away. "right of the people" in the first amendment 16 words earlier and in the 4th Amendment fourty-sex words later to refer to individual rights, yet meant something totally different when they used the exact same words.
How can a State "bear arms"? Only humans can bear arms.
James Madison, "essential and sacred rights that each individual reserved to himself."
Thomas Jefferson, "The people have the right and duty at all times to be armed; freedom of person, religion, property, press.
Tench Coxe - "Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth right of an American…[under the Constitution] the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
No known writing from the period b/w 1787 and 1791. - Professor David B. Kopel, wrote an 183-page analysis of every single nineteenth-century reference to the Second Amendment; not a single reference to a "collective right." Did James Madison dupe America?
Since the Constitution prohibits states from maintaining standing armies without congressional consent, the state's militia is nothing more than a law-abiding, gun owning adults that make up its citizenry.
To maintain otherwise - that the 2nd Amendment protects the arms of the state but not the arms of its individual citizens-stems from a nonsensical interpretation of American History.
What part of "well-regulated militia" don't you understand? That provides the context for the right afforded the people. It's not an absolute right.
The problem with the unrestricted individual right interpretation is that it gives no legal meaning to the initial clause of the 2nd Amendment. An important concept in legal interpretation is that all words are assumed to have a specific purpose. Therefore, the preferred interpretation is generally one that gives effect to all of the words, not just some.
Historical context is important for determining intent when the plain language is ambiguous. However, the words are still assumed to have a purpose. Complete nullification of a clause by historical context alone - to be differentiated from nullification through subsequent legistlative action - would be...well, I'm just not aware of any such situation.
Finally, here's another interesting quote to consider...
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams (taken from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#John_Adams )
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."...subject of sentence is "militia". The Revolution was not fought by individual citizens, it was fought by State militias. The adjective "well-regulated" has the word "REGULATED" in it. This cannot be interpreted into "anyone can have a gun if they want". This is why the NRA knowingly omits that part of the sentence from their motto...they don't want to see that "well-regulated" part.
The 2nd Amendment is to keep Washington DC from leaving the States powerless to defend from enemies both foreign and domestic. That's how States have the right to bear arms. Personal firearms rights are per State constitution.
see above.
Either you're ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
Only one or the other? Why not both? Anyway...
The word "people" is used throughout the bill of rights. It is clearly used to define individuals.
Although even the meaning of "the people" in context of the 2nd Amendment has been debated, I tend to favor the "individual" definition as well. No argument there.
To say the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right is absurd.
That's definitely one side of the debate. Of course, that interpretation tends to give no meaning to the first phrase of the amendment, as alluded to by Pragmatic Liberal. But that's all beside my point, which was simply that the "individual" vs. "state" interpretation is a major, if not the major, source of disagreement. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misread my post and didn't mean to argue that there is no disagreement.
how can a State bare arms? (my emphasis added)
Hmmm...maybe if Mississippi removed Missouri's New Jersey?
Don't see the thundering hoard today. I'm happy to have an oportunity to agree with Tommy and much else here. I would add one rats nest to it. Handguns, a discussion. I'm sure most here know the basic arguments for both sides, and in this case it is not a good case for either of the arguments. This was a troubled kid, a known troubled kid. People did try to help, they failed to do so and no mark against them for that. How would we suceed next time? The thing is some people have no good reason to have a hand gun. Personal and home defence is a slipperly area. I can see folks reacting very emotionally to someone taking away what they consider essential security. Statistics, personal advice from a respected source. I don't know if the fear can be overcome in all cases. And yes I'm open to the idea that someone needs a handgun. Rational or irrational, I have friends with them they're responsible people, they get no sh*t from me.
Their are folks with no vagueness about the 2nd amendment. Radio America's Randy Rhodes ( I hope thats the proper spelling) References 2 Supreme court cases (not 3 as I missposted yesterday) and one at a level just below the Supremes. There was a caller last night referencing a Supreme court case that defined anyone posessing a gun to be an automatic member of the state miltia. She somehow had that decision availible corrected him on its content. He'd been sounding pretty smug to that point, then quickly hung up. Anyone else run accross this type of thing?
Speaking as a non-gun-owning, pantywaist Red, I can't see the solution to gun violence being in banning guns. It wouldn't work anyway - isn't marijuana a Schedule I narcotic? I have a harder time finding a good bottle of Cabernet most days than I would getting an eighth of kind bud...
Look at Canada, and all the guns they have, and look at the difference in gun violence between here and there. Something deeper is at work here, and we can't legislate it out of existence any more than Prohibition kept people from driving drunk.
"Found quite dear..."?
They wrote one single - repeat: single - somewhat ambiguous sentence referencing it.
Maybe they were feigning disinterest in order to play hard-to-get?
Hey, thanks for clearing up the mystery! I suppose the our "reply to" 's went with Genevieve?
Only the good, born-again replies went with Gen. I see mine are still here...
I don't mind getting left behind, it just makes for so much more work, now, explaining my comments...
Mine have gone with the General. I made a few responses to his insanity. Usually when someone gets deleted, any replies disappear too. At least that's been the case with me.
I'm joining late and totally confused. Is there really a "Genevieve JackassRaper" handle?
Congratulations to all of you on your spelling. My wife is named Genevieve, and 30%-40% of her mail, and 90% of telemarketers get it wrong.
Conchobar: the handle was Gen_J_Ripper at first; then became Gen_Jack_Ripper. We sorta "adjusted" that for amusement, eventually reaching Genevieve "Jack" Ripper; finally, as you have noted . . .
I guess your just being you. Thanks for the reply though. I actually kind of enjoy your brand of humor...
NO I will not try to look IT up, the onus is on you buddy. You and Ldoren said there were several instances. You got one, lets see more. One instance does not justify introducing a bunch of state laws to allow college kids and high school teachers to carry guns.
Thanks for that nice tidbit of irrelevant information, are you advocating for disarming ONLY minorities... PLEASE SAY NO, before I lose my cool... I'm waiting....
Aii College kids smear again. So, if you work as a mechanic right out of high school, gun ownership is OK, but not if you go to college. Weird.
Do mechanics live in/on public-funded institutions? GO AWAY TROLL.
Nice work by Media Matters...
More than likely, Schneider is just reading cue cards from his corporate masters.
Looks like we got another one. You guys come out quicker then Rush's OxyContin Pills when he reads his own hate own MMFA.
Lets go over this again, he made WHAT valid point when he read the DOJ statistics? How does him quoting the statistics relate to the gun control debate?
Him regurgitating them within itself was not racists. However, what was he implying when he said you should look "elsewhere if you wanna address the gun control situation". Surely he wasn't implying only applying gun control to JUST African Americans. Nahhh...
Although I don't agree with him. I don't think he should be silenced. I don't even think MMFA should have removed his comments at all(unless of course my theory is correct and he removed himself). Leave them there, I wasn't finished with him yet. And besides, people NEED to see these kind of comments. Its eye opening.
Here's the thing maties : I was all for liscencing guns until this admin came along with it's warrantless wiretapping and other NSA spook data compilation. Now I think that registering your gun only makes it easier for the nat gaurd to swing by and confiscate by the list. Heck, I can't even write my congressman here in TX because to make a political statement other than red meat right wingnut - for to do so is to get yourself on a watch list for subversives and undesirables. Also, consider : guns will not protect you from the gov when they come, but it will protect you from other gun owners who may roam the streets when the inevitable chaos ensues. What chaos you say? When the housing and credit and debt bubble bursts in the next year or two. Stock market crashes, China comes-a-calling. We are screwed. Halliburton knew the writing on the wall and moved to Dubai. If only we could do the same. Yippe Ki A. It is all most delightful to be sure.
This is so funny, with any other amendment you would want to defend it to the end. But with the 2nd it's lets restrict it to the end. When are people going to learn when one right is restricted the rest become weaker. After people are not allowed to defend them selfs then they will have to depend on the goverment to defend them. That has never worked. Look at the crime rates where people do not have the right to defend them selfs(new york city, l.a.). Even in england people get shot for parking in the wrong place. If you don't want to own a gun that is great but don't step on my right to own one.
All rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, even the big ones in the 1st amendment. The 2nd amendment is no different.
I just wish that gun nuts would come out and admit that they simply like guns and that the 20,000 or so deaths by guns are worth having that privilege. But no, they pretend it's about the constitution.
I got tired of reading through all those comments but just in case.
1) He had 2 pistols. He did not have an SKS. He did not have an AK. He did not have a Bushmaster M-4gery. He had 2 pistols that he would have been able to legally purchase anywhere in the United States.
2) There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Not all assault rifles are captured by such bans and not all weapons under those bans are assault rifles. It shows that the people making the laws have no idea about which they are legislating.
3) According to the only SCOTUS ruling on point, the clause about militias are just to define what weapons are allowed. (US v. Miller 307US174(1939)) In that case it was stated that one could not have a short barreled shotgun because it was not used by militias at the time. (Ironically the US used 40,000 short barreled shotguns in WW1). By their reasoning there is no reason that one should be restricted from having an M-4 clone with a "fun switch". It costs $15K fully kitted right now simply because of the tax. It is $3K without the switch and tax.
4) The SCOTUS has ruled that it is not the responisbility of the police or any government agency to keep you safe. If it is my responsibility to keep myself safe then why should I not be allowed to carry the necessary equipment to ensure my safety?
I am rarely here anymore because of the loons but feel free to email me at tauarmy@gmail.com.
If the idea is that we should restrict guns to what they had in 1789, I'm all for that. I'd like to see that gunmen try to kill thirty people with a muzzle loader!
That is quite possible with a 12 pounder. I would prefer to restrict individuals to firearms and not guns.
I do not have a problem with my neighbor having 5 fully automatic weapons. I know they aren't going to just hope out into the street and shoot me. Many of my neighbors have many rifles and pistols. One even has a destructive device (UCAS 12). Ignorance breeds fear. Being around firearms and knowing exactly what they will do keeps me from being afraid.
As to the talk about nuclear arms that people listed earlier, nuclear or chemical weapons would be restricted naturally because they pose a danger just sitting there. Firearms don't just leak and kill people.
Not that it matters but I only have one rifle, a .22 cal. I have not fired a weapon of any kind since I was discharged from the Navy. This isn't something I believe in because I am a gun toting redneck. It is something I believe in because of the Constitution.
I'm not sure who Newsweek, CNN and the rest are polling, but they sure as hell not polling any of the gun owners I've known in the past 30 years. 66% favor registering all handgun owners? Maybe they conducted the poll in the U.K.
But, if liberals want to hear it, it must be the truth!
If you don't believe there's a liberal bias within the MAJOR news outlets, your PCP use has gotten entirely out of hand.
That's because cons refuse to understand that the majority of Americans are liberal on social issues and have been for awhile. Gun nuts are thankfully few, but it only takes a few. They hang out with other gun nuts and probably think the rest of America has a small penis too.